ASEBL Journal – Volume 11 Issue 1, January 2015
like rhythm and sound. He says, “(I)t seems clear to me that such little poems, aimed
at quieting babies still unable to articulate their helplessness, pain or anger, must be
common all over the world, both in cultures with, and without, a written tradition”
(1990: 135). The lullaby he cites was established and socially integrated into the Old
Babylonia period of c. 1950-1530 BCE (1990: 140), and contains similar patterns of
rhythm (with alliteration and consonance primary among them) that can be seen in
any other modern lullaby. The text is as follows (with the English translation after):
sehrum wãSib bit ekletim
lú tattasâm tãtamar núr èamèim
ammin tabakki ammin tuggag
ullikia ammin lã tabki
ili bitim tedki kusarikkum iggeltêm
mannum idkianni mannum ugallitanni
sehrum idkika sehrum ugallitka
kima Sãtu karãnim kima mãr sãbitim
limqutaãàum èittum
Little one, who dwelt in the house of darkness—
well, you are outside now, have seen the light of the sun.
Why are you crying, why are you yelling?
Why didn't you cry in there?
You have roused the god of the house, the kusarikkum has woken up:
“Who roused me? Who startled me?”
The little one has roused you, the little one has startled you!
“As onto drinkers of wine, as onto tipplers, may sleep fall on him!” (1990: 140)
What should be clear, despite a lack of knowledge of the Babylonian language and
particular pronunciation,xxi is the constant alliteration and consonance, the particular
rhythms that these effects cause. One can compare them to such random examples as
‘Rock a Bye Baby’ in English, where each lullaby builds through repetition of rhythmic consonant sounds; English utilizing B, T and L sounds, not to mention the qualities of assonance. The Babylonian lullaby here (and Farber admits on 140 that the
English translation was made to reflect content, not sound) uses T, M and G sounds to
create its particular rhythms. Farber says of the Babylonian text, “The form of the poem emphasizes simplicity and is thus particularly suited for memorization. Taking all
this together, I consider the text to be not only a typical, but also an especially impressive example of purposeful folk poetry” (1990: 142). The question here – since what
is being examined is a style of poetry which is not attempting to be artistically ornate
– is why the overall similarity of sound and rhythm functions in the various lullabies
unless there is an innate appreciation in the infants (and thereby has always been if a
4000 year spread is to be believed) for exactly the same kinds of rhythms and metric
patterns?
Dissanayake says of universal trends in mother-infant engagement and bonding, “The
utterances also appear to be organized primarily into what can be transcribed as lines
(or phrases), judged either by number of words, or by timed length, generally three to
four seconds” (1999: 380). She builds her theory of musicality on Turner’s and Pop-
48